[b-hebrew] b-hebrew Uncancellable meaning and Hebrew verbs
farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com
Mon Jul 6 07:56:09 EDT 2009
> Of course they are semantically different. They represent completely
> different kinds of motion. But the question is whether they have any
> semantic elements which are uncancellable.
Sorry, but it was you that said their was little difference. I was just
responding to what you said.
> 1) Can an object only fall downwards?
> 2) Can an object only sink downwards?
> 3) Can a flying object only land on a solid object?
> Another example we could throw out for discussion:
> 4) He was crawling on his feet but not on his hands. This he learned, of
> course, after toddling on hands and knees.
> James Christian
James, I'm not sure what you're attempting to do with these examples. If
you're trying to prove that the semantics of some lexemes or
constructions involve semantics which are consistent across used, you
have no disagreement with me. I already accept this. What I dispute is
that this is principal inherent to semantic meaning, that semantics is
to be understood as meaning which is uncancellable and any meaning which
is cancellable (or not consistent across uses) is pragmatic. Rolf has
not proven his point because he has not treated all the linguistic
evidence which goes against his position.
More information about the b-hebrew